The Unofficial Election 2016 Results Thread PLEASE

Argumemnon said:
Interesting. You are now claiming that some factual claims do not require evidence? Huh.
Click to expand...

Factual claims do require evidence. We are getting a little wishy washy on the terms but i think it makes sense to say I am not making a factual claim. I'm making a logical claim.

Without having to diagram the whole claim, what do you think evidence would look like?
 
Last edited:
It looks like Gary Johnson drew 2 to 4% of the votes in some states. Are there any where he likely drew enough votes from Hillary (or maybe Trump, though less likely) to turn the state?
 
Bob001 said:
It looks like Gary Johnson drew 2 to 4% of the votes in some states. Are there any where he likely drew enough votes from Hillary (or maybe Trump, though less likely) to turn the state?
Click to expand...

As I said before, any liberal website will tell you libertarians are just Republicans who smoke pot. It is quite risible to now say without a libertarian candidate they would have turned around and voted for a Democrat.
 
Last edited:
So Trump supporters, how do you think a trade war with China, tax cuts, massively increased national debt, and ripping up trade deals will pan out in the short to medium term?

Recession is the answer.

His repudiation of the science of climate change?

This will condemn our children and grandchildren to a dangerously warming planet.

Still smugly satisfied?
 
lionking said:
So Trump supporters, how do you think a trade war with China, tax cuts, massively increased national debt, and ripping up trade deals will pan out in the short to medium term?

Recession is the answer.

His repudiation of the science of climate change?

This will condemn our children and grandchildren to a dangerously warming planet.

Still smugly satisfied?
Click to expand...

Put an R next to a national candidate and they will get ~60m votes. Spot the problem here:

Obama got 65.9m votes in '12
Romney got 60.9m votes in '12
Clinton has 59.3m
Donald has 59.1m​
 
Argumemnon said:
You said that immigrants don't adhere to the same philosophy. That is a factual claim.
Click to expand...

That is a logical based claim.

The philosophy is that a person should continue working in their home country to make it better.

An immigrant is someone who is not continuing in their home country to make it better. They are leaving their country

Therefore they are not adhering to the philosophy.
 
BobTheCoward said:
That is a logical based claim.

The philosophy is that a person should continue working in their home country to make it better.

An immigrant is someone who is not continuing in their home country to make it better. They are leaving their country

Therefore they are not adhering to the philosophy.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's funny that persons in a country enmeshed in civil war just up and move their families away. They ought to stay there and sort it. Just sort it.

Almost exactly like liberals in the U.S. after losing an important election.
 
Argumemnon said:
Yeah but the bill itself was a compromise to make it pass. Sure shows Obama: no point in making concessions to those fools.
Click to expand...


You asked what I meant by "door prizes;" I assume that's been adequately answered, so there's no need to follow up on quibbles about illustrative examples.

Keep viewing everything from the point of view of "who's worse, Democrats or Republicans?" and you'll never understand why Trump was elected. (That is to say, your understanding will be limited to "because tens of millions of people are stupid" which is no understanding at all).

Higher rents and lower wages have been actively supported or passively tolerated (who cares which?) by both parties for decades, and the people wielding power in both parties, being wealthy, have benefited. The latest uptick or downtick doesn't matter, especially when how you or your neighbor define unemployment and the cost of living is likely to differ from the government's own ever-changing definitions. That lower rents are available in places with no living-wage jobs (big help! big surprise!) or higher wages in places with ruinous rents don't matter either.

That rich Democrats cried all the way to the bank after being forced to compromise on health care reform with eeeeebil rich Republicans doesn't matter.

That's it's not even their particular fault, because ultimately it's all nearly-invetiable consequences of technological progress, doesn't matter. (There might have been a missed opportunity somewhere for society to channel the vastly increased industrial productivity into decreased work hours at proportionally higher pay, or to pass the increased profits proportionally along to the workers so that fewer industrial workers per household or per community would be needed, but given human nature can we really expect the management classes to have done other that what they did: use the decreased demand for workers as leverage for more work at lower pay while rubbing their hands and crooning "More profits for meeeeeeeeeee!"?)

It's very simple. When wages are too low and rents are too high, people revolt.

Yeah, the old joke: "The peasants are revolting." "They sure are!" (Updated by Hillary Clinton to include a basket and a different synonym for "revolting," but the original is still funnier.)

In this case the revolt has taken the very mildest form possible and still have it be noticed or recognized as such at all. So far. It's happened not only via completely legal participation in a completely routine election process, but even under the auspices of the established parties. (Though history suggests that even that very mild form of revolt can still have dangerous or even catastrophic consequences.)

If you don't want to see less mild and even more dangerous forms in the future, let's hope the 45th President of the U.S. becomes the most successful one to date.
 
Last edited:
Myriad said:
You asked what I meant by "door prizes;" I assume that's been adequately answered, so there's no need to follow up on quibbles about illustrative examples.

Keep viewing everything from the point of view of "who's worse, Democrats or Republicans?" and you'll never understand why Trump was elected. (That is to say, your understanding will be limited to "because tens of millions of people are stupid" which is no understanding at all).

Higher rents and lower wages have been actively supported or passively tolerated (who cares which?) by both parties for decades, and the people wielding power in both parties, being wealthy, have benefited. The latest uptick or downtick doesn't matter, especially when how you or your neighbor define unemployment and the cost of living is likely to differ from the government's own ever-changing definitions. That lower rents are available in places with no living-wage jobs (big help! big surprise!) or higher wages in places with ruinous rents don't matter either.

That rich Democrats cried all the way to the bank after being forced to compromise on health care reform with eeeeebil rich Republicans doesn't matter.

That's it's not even their particular fault, because ultimately it's all nearly-invetiable consequences of technological progress, doesn't matter. (There might have been a missed opportunity somewhere for society to channel the vastly increased industrial productivity into decreased work hours at proportionally higher pay, or to pass the increased profits proportionally along to the workers so that fewer industrial workers per household or per community would be needed, but given human nature can we really expect the management classes to done other that what they did: use the decreased demand for workers as leverage for more work at lower pay while rubbing their hands and crooning "More profits for meeeeeeeeeee!"?)

It's very simple. When wages are too low and rents are too high, people revolt.

Yeah, the old joke: "The peasants are revolting." "They sure are!" (Updated by Hilary Clinton to include a basket and a different synonym for "revolting," but the original is still funnier.)

In this case the revolt has taken the very mildest form possible and still have it be noticed or recognized as such at all. So far. It's happened not only via completely legal participation in a completely routine election process, but even under the auspices of the established parties. (Though history suggests that even that very mild form of revolt can still have dangerous or even catastrophic consequences.)

If you don't want to see less mild and even more dangerous forms in the future, let's hope the 45th President of the U.S. becomes the most successful one to date.
Click to expand...

Wages are up in this country and there are more jobs. The cost burden of rent is down since 2010.
 
Myriad said:
You asked what I meant by "door prizes;" I assume that's been adequately answered, so there's no need to follow up on quibbles about illustrative examples.

Keep viewing everything from the point of view of "who's worse, Democrats or Republicans?" and you'll never understand why Trump was elected. (That is to say, your understanding will be limited to "because tens of millions of people are stupid" which is no understanding at all).

Higher rents and lower wages have been actively supported or passively tolerated (who cares which?) by both parties for decades, and the people wielding power in both parties, being wealthy, have benefited. The latest uptick or downtick doesn't matter, especially when how you or your neighbor define unemployment and the cost of living is likely to differ from the government's own ever-changing definitions. That lower rents are available in places with no living-wage jobs (big help! big surprise!) or higher wages in places with ruinous rents don't matter either.

That rich Democrats cried all the way to the bank after being forced to compromise on health care reform with eeeeebil rich Republicans doesn't matter.

That's it's not even their particular fault, because ultimately it's all nearly-invetiable consequences of technological progress, doesn't matter. (There might have been a missed opportunity somewhere for society to channel the vastly increased industrial productivity into decreased work hours at proportionally higher pay, or to pass the increased profits proportionally along to the workers so that fewer industrial workers per household or per community would be needed, but given human nature can we really expect the management classes to have done other that what they did: use the decreased demand for workers as leverage for more work at lower pay while rubbing their hands and crooning "More profits for meeeeeeeeeee!"?)

It's very simple. When wages are too low and rents are too high, people revolt.

Yeah, the old joke: "The peasants are revolting." "They sure are!" (Updated by Hillary Clinton to include a basket and a different synonym for "revolting," but the original is still funnier.)

In this case the revolt has taken the very mildest form possible and still have it be noticed or recognized as such at all. So far. It's happened not only via completely legal participation in a completely routine election process, but even under the auspices of the established parties. (Though history suggests that even that very mild form of revolt can still have dangerous or even catastrophic consequences.)

If you don't want to see less mild and even more dangerous forms in the future, let's hope the 45th President of the U.S. becomes the most successful one to date.
Click to expand...

Excuse me, what does that have to do with my post? Did you mean to reply to someone else? I simply pointed out to Tony that the ACA was meant as a compromise but that in the end the GOP voted against it anyway. Obama would've been better off just crafting the bill the way he wanted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom